I’ve been using Linux Mint since forever. I’ve never felt a reason to change. But I’m interested in what persuaded others to move.
As someone who hates Windows with a passion, once everyone recommend Linux Mint, I knew I had to try it.
I immediately had negative first impressions. I simply don’t wanna use something with a desktop environment that reminds me of something that I hate. I get that it makes transitioning a lot easier for many, but for me it simply looks too similar to Windows.
Every couple of years I think to myself “You know, I can’t actually remember why I don’t like Ubuntu. It must have just been some weird one-off thing that soured me on it last time. Besides, I’ve got N more years of Linux experience under my belt, so I know how to avoid sticky situations with apt, and they’ve had N more years to make their OS more user friendly! I pride myself on not holding grudges, and if this distro still gets recommended to newbies, how bad can it possibly be, especially for someone with my level of expertise?”
And then I download Ubuntu.
And then I remember.
Most of them.
-
Debian world - apt sucks. For something with a sole purpose of resolving a dependency tree, it’s surprisingly bad at that.
-
Redhat world - everything is soooo old. I can see why business people like it, buy I rarely, if ever, agree with business people.
-
Opensuse world - I’ve only tried it once, probably 15 years ago. Didn’t really know my way around computers all that much at the time, but it didn’t click and I’ve left it. Later on I found out about their selling out to Microsoft and never bothered touching it again.
-
Arch - it was my daily for a year or two. Big fan. It still runs my email. At some point the size of packages started to annoy me, though. Still has the best wiki. I’ve never really bothered with the spinoffs, as the model of Arch makes them useless and more problematic to deal with.
I’ve got the Gentoo bug now. For the first time I genuinely feel
~/. A lean, mean system of machines :)deleted by creator
It is that deal from 2006(?) or so. Agreeing to not be sued for an exchange of money is dodgy. Add the competition which was not offered the same deal; add in the environment which was drastically different; it was a shit thing to do. Purely a business decision. I understand why the shareholders wanted that, but that doesn’t make it right nor desirable for me.
Granted, nothing came out of it in the end and Linux managed to get itself established in a way where one could argue is close to impossible to get rid of it, but I feel like this deal is similar to getting stabbed - the one being stabbed will always bear a scar and remember, while others will forget over time. People growing up after this deal will never have experienced the mood and environment of that time which only makes it more difficult to understand why it was a big deal.
deleted by creator
never really bothered with the spinoffs, as the model of Arch makes them useless and more problematic to deal with
I highly enjoy using EndeavourOS. But then again, I wouldn’t classify it as a spinoff, it’s pretty much vanilla Arch, but purple.
Now Manjaro on the other hand… Tried it and understood why so many people don’t like it within the first week.
Now Manjaro on the other hand… Tried it and understood why so many people don’t like it within the first week.
I see this a lot and nobody really ever explains, properly, why.
I have used Linux off and on for many years (mainly server OS such as RHEL and CentOS). I have now migrated from Windows desktop to Manjaro KDE. Using it for a year. Had one issue (wouldn’t boot after a kernel update), which I sorted quickly. Other than that it’s been rock solid.
But this isn’t a ‘I have a great experience so you’re all just haters’ post.
I know the stuff about it being a week or behind Arch. I remember something about the maintainers (can’t remember specifics) but they seem to be minor niggles that don’t affect most people.
Genuine question.
Why do you dislike Manjaro? I also know it’s a common theme to dislike it, so any other insight there?
Not the guy you asked, but my 2 main gripes are:
- holding back main repos and not aur? That’s dumb and just asking for trouble.
- sheer incompetence. Remember their certs expiring? Remember their public recommended workaround? That’s webdev level of bs. They absolutely do not understand their own setup.
-
NixOS… for now. I was on Fedora and was looking for something new. Thought I’d try these new „immutable” distros. Then realised I didn’t know enough about normal ones yet, so I switched to Arch instead. Plus, Nix’ docs are horrendous imo
Opensuse. Did absolutely nothing wrong but I just didn’t vibe with it. Went to fedora and I vibe hard with it
Ubuntu, felt like I was being treated like a child with the lack of user customizability
then I chose to jump directly into Arch Linux🙃 and saw despair from analysis paralysis, somehow I learned Arch in just a month tho🤷♀️
Arch: I need reproducible setups. Also bleeding edge is not for me.
I have to give credit to their documentation though!
I daily drive Fedora, but I’ve used Arch, OpenSUSE, Debian, and more. Once you get used to how Linux works, distro doesn’t really matter that much aside from edge case distros that operate totally differently like Nix. I chose Fedora because I like the dnf package manager.
The only distro I don’t like is Ubuntu. I had to setup a Linux VM at work so I figured Ubuntu would be a good choice for that. Firefox is painfully slow to open because of Snap, so I uninstall it and run “apt install firefox” which Ubuntu overrides and installs the Snap again.
Fuck. That. Deleted the VM and installed Debian instead.
manjaro.
All of them, so I’m still on Windows
Yes officer, this heretic right here.
